There have been incidents like that, but I can't remember the outcones.

The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think

The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think

Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.

Is it about their beliefs though? A cake making business doesn't automatically support/believe the messages they put on their cakes. They could easily have made the cake, but held on to their belief that gay marriage is wrong. Making the cake wouldn't have automatically signed them up to a LGBT support association.

They could have made the cake but that may have put them in a moral quandary. (I don't know, you'd need to ask them)

It seems very strange that it is deemed illegal to refuse to provide a cake promoting gay marriage in a country in which gay marriage isn't legal.

The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think

The fact a provision is in place to refuse to sell bacon implies that it is accepted that there is a conflict with their religious beliefs.

And I know bacon isn't a protected characteristic but the argument against the bakery was that by making the cake they are not endorsing the message. By selling bacon you are not endorsing the eating of pork yet it is deemed a conflict.

If I was the defence lawyer, I'd be asking is it a conflict or is it not?

This is a case of religious beliefs (which are protected) conflicting with sexual orientation (also protected). It's an interesting case.

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

The fact a provision is in place to refuse to sell bacon implies that it is accepted that there is a conflict with their religious beliefs.

And I know bacon isn't a protected characteristic but the argument against the bakery was that by making the cake they are not endorsing the message. By selling bacon you are not endorsing the eating of pork yet it is deemed a conflict.

If I was the defence lawyer, I'd be asking is it a conflict or is it not?

Your bacon example is not analogous to this case. A shop owner/shop employee relationship also involves other areas of the law not relevant to this case. A better analogy would be if the shop only sold bacon to people of certain religions and refused to sell it to people of other religions.

A business refusing to sell a product or service to everyone is fine. The Justices covered that in this cake case as well. "The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation"

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

Just out of interest do you think the ruling would/could/should have been different had the person asking for the message on the cake been hetrosexual?

PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

The fact it is getting so much discussion suggests it is indeed interesting.

Your bacon example is not analogous to this case. A shop owner/shop employee relationship also involves other areas of the law not relevant to this case. A better analogy would be if the shop only sold bacon to people of certain religions and refused to sell it to people of other religions.

A business refusing to sell a product or service to everyone is fine. The Justices covered that in this cake case as well. "The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation"

I wasn't comparing entire cases. The point is that one suggests that providing certain products can conflict with religious belief, the other doesn't. Which is it?

Just out of interest do you think the ruling would/could/should have been different had the person asking for the message on the cake been hetrosexual?

From the summary of the lower court's decision:
"The judge said that even if she had been persuaded that the appellants had not been aware of the respondentís religious belief and/or political opinion, she would have found that the appellants discriminated against him by treating him less favourably on the grounds of their own religious beliefs and political opinion."

I would say that the judgement is not dependent on the sexuality of the person ordering the cake.

For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

The case is about a clash of beliefs, as is the majority of the related publicity; it is just the Judgment that is not.

Judges shouldn't be making the law; they should be interpreting it and, to an extent, enforcing it (for want of a better word). That's what has happened here and is what happens in the vast majority of civil cases. Often disputes which appear to be finely balanced morally (or in the application of "common sense") are decided based on how the law is written and interpreted. This is why we rely so heavily on civil servants and, to a lesser extent, their political masters.

They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

I'm pretty sure you'd find a Muslim or Jewish person who would sell bacon or alcohol. Certainly in the case of the former, there's plenty of examples I can think of where the business owner is unlikely to use the ingredients for his own consumption, but will sell it.

Hypothetically speaking, should the situation arise where a Christian organisation approached a 'gay bar' to display a pro same sex marriage poster or leaflets etc, would they have any grounds to refuse to display said poster along side their other posters/leaflets? If they refused to display it due to disagreeing with the message, would they be guilty of discrimination?